Poll: Sense of logic

[Speakpigeon]

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

Something we can use but that we can also disregard when it suits us for whatever reason.
EB

 

[DolphinDynasty]

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

Something we can use but that we can also disregard when it suits us for whatever reason.
EB

Logic, like all other processes that can only come about through experience, observation and experimentation, ins nit innate or inherent to our form. Yet, it is taught quite early, at least until varied adults seek to trip it from young children in order to inculcate bad ideas, magical ideas or wishful thinking. The brain is not fully developed at birth, and as such only primitive instinctual reactions are present at birth, the grasping reflex, the leg reflex, the foot reflex, the swallowing reflex, blinking reflex.

We o not even hold emotional reactions until we are, firstly a part of this environment outside the womb, an then old enough to experience things like pain, fear, unease, hunger, thirst and in such a way that we begin to remember it. This only happens between the ages of 2-4 years old, once short term memory begins to overlap with long term memory. For each of these types of memory to set in one must be cognizant of reality long enough for the brain to begin, as a survival measure, to file info gained from outside one's own self.

Once these types of memory born by awareness of the world o et in however, it is only more step to include self awareness before consciousness sets in. After consciousness is present then logic can be instituted likely from a variety of sources that often begins quite early, as I said. But if taken down, out or denied from others for long enough, at least in certain areas of our social structure, it can lead people to begin leaving it behind on their own, hence the severe attribution of stupidity outweighing people's logic and reason.

While we carry no conscious memory of the ages before long term memory solidifies in the brain, it does not mean our use of logic is intuitive or innate because for it to be innate it would have to present before birth, and as I explained only physical reflexes are such. Logic is learned, but not necessarily from social interaction, so the poll is a bit faulty. It is a construct, just one that can be derived and utilized without any other human present, although it will remain as rudimentary as it is with other species if there is no way for the particular human to advance their own use of it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll quibble with just one word:

it is taught

I assume it's not what you meant. The environment does not literally teach logic to the little humans.

Or maybe two, like this one:

so the poll is a bit faulty.

Because the following seems to cover what you explained:

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

If not, why not?

And this too:

Logic is learned

If logic is somehow inevitably produced by the brain subject to routine interactions with whatever reality happens to be around it then I'm not sure "learned" is the appropriate word. It would be if logic was a thing to interact with in the environment, like a tree or other people are. I don't think that's the case at all. The brain interact with the reality that's around. That's all there is.

As I see it, the brain has to produce its own model of an initially unknown environment, and this as you say in the early years of life. A prior sense of logic seems a very necessary capability to achieve that. So, the brain needs to build a sense of logic even before starting to build a model of the environment, and in effect before any formal teaching could possibly take place. This sense of logic would results from the interaction of the brain with whatever reality is around. Obviously, the model of the environment built by the brain has to take from the environment itself but I would assume that the logic is just part of what neuron networks do, whatever the environment. I think a brain in a vat would do well in this respect if provided with inputs consistent with a physical world, i.e. nothing like blank noise.

Why didn't you vote for "logic is a construct, social or otherwise"? Seems to match your position better.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

I didn't see an option that covered my understanding. As I see it, humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning. Logic is only a formal system that models that ability. Humans don't have an intuitive sense of the formal system but do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes.

As a comparison; humans instinctively understand that gathering more of some objects will increase the amount and using some will decrease the amount. Mathematics is a formal system that describes this but, without studying mathematics, someone would not be able to handle the symbols of mathematics.

 

[DolphinDynasty]

I'll quibble with just one word:



I assume it's not what you meant. The environment does not literally teach logic to the little humans.

Or maybe two, like this one:


Because the following seems to cover what you explained:

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

If not, why not?

And this too:

Logic is learned

If logic is somehow inevitably produced by the brain subject to routine interactions with whatever reality happens to be around it then I'm not sure "learned" is the appropriate word. It would be if logic was a thing to interact with in the environment, like a tree or other people are. I don't think that's the case at all. The brain interact with the reality that's around. That's all there is.

As I see it, the brain has to produce its own model of an initially unknown environment, and this as you say in the early years of life. A prior sense of logic seems a very necessary capability to achieve that. So, the brain needs to build a sense of logic even before starting to build a model of the environment, and in effect before any formal teaching could possibly take place. This sense of logic would results from the interaction of the brain with whatever reality is around. Obviously, the model of the environment built by the brain has to take from the environment itself but I would assume that the logic is just part of what neuron networks do, whatever the environment. I think a brain in a vat would do well in this respect if provided with inputs consistent with a physical world, i.e. nothing like blank noise.

Why didn't you vote for "logic is a construct, social or otherwise"? Seems to match your position better.
EB

Saying "it is taught" does not automatically imply by the environment as if the environment itself did the teaching, instead it being either human or animal that taught it, as we have evidence for the latter not the former. Wtf? People will learn logic through their experiences either because it helps them to hunt/forage/make tools, or because other people/animals help to instill logical inferences through proper investigation of their surrounding environment.

I said the question was a bit faulty because it includes the assumption that it can be, and indeed that we already supposedly have evidence that it is innate or "native' to us thereby implying it is there upon birth, when we have no evidence of this, at all. What we do have evidence for is that it is a learned skill, not necessarily learned from direct teaching by another human/or element of nature in the sense the human/animal or environment knew what they were teaching was called logic, but it amounts to the same whatever label we pin on it to begin with.

Math as a concept does exist in nature, in the sense that we understand what we label 2 in the amount of apples, plus another 2 apples means we now have what we label as 4. So does logic in a moral sense. If we see that we are none of us in a group hungry, and one of us decides to torture a bull cattle while laughing, we cannot assess that there is a need for this, as no one is hungry. But we can conclude in watching what is happening that, if no one is hungry, and the torture has injured the cattle so now it will be subject to further possible harm or death by a nearby predator, a lone lion, or that we would need to decrease suffering because the sound of the bull's repeated and loud cries may drive a even larger group of predators such as a group of lions towards us, and this we can infer from having experienced it happening to a nearby town where someone else tortured a bull without killing it for food, the conclusion that logic draws upon is that nobody should be torturing cattle while laughing about it since it causes more harm to more animals (including us) then it causes benefit. This logical, based off of well being, is learned from the specific situation caused by fir one human in the town and then one another human outside the town, and so yes it is learned.

For it to be innate, or intuitive, it would have to be present before we become conscious beings, if not before birth. In order for us to have experienced something negative happening to us, an individual or group, we need to be aware, hold memory, self awareness, aware of our relative position in the group, our position within the physical environment, aware of other animals, that sort of thing. Because logic is a biological tool we utilize for assessment for things like harm, suffering, physical benefit, also angles, distances,, what we are trying to tell a computer to perform as the next task, and all of these things we cannot know about until we are within that specific environment as well as capable of learning because our brains need be developed enough to hold memory and t process what we see, hear, smell, touch, and the effects of our actions or inactions.

I find it appalling and astounding how few people are allowing themselves the time, patience, and the observational skill to evaluate this out of nature as well as out of man driven/controlled environment. Even if the term is not yet known by a person, as I did not realize there was a term for learning in this way until college, but already had experience with it in use in math, computer programming, and in morality because I used my environment around me to test for things such as whether or not there was a necessity for a person to be shouting at another person, found that the person being shouted at did nothing to warrant it, logic would then dictate that if the shouting continues someone else may call the police, or else they'd be losing sleep if it late at night, this ll being inferred by previous occurrences of what happens when somebody sits and shouts and screams at another person for no good reason, because there's no active danger from another person or animal or fire or flood, that sort of thing.

In programming logic is evidenced by if/then statements, and used in math such as with algebra, and finally in moral arguments as well as in an argument to explain something we can infer to be true based off of what we can already know to be true from experiencing something about an environment.

As to your statement on it being something the neural network can already do this is not the case if a person has almost no contact with people and/or animals. The Case f Genie comes to mind, that while it was study done to understand that language is a learned trait, and not about logic, this girl, because she was sequestered away from humans and other animals and her environment, tied to a potty chair until past the age of 12 years only allowed out of it when a psychologist, social worker and police were called to the house by a neighbor, she could not utilize logic or speech, at all, ever. Though there were attempts to teach it in the intervening years after she was found, and through scans were able to note that she was not born with any developmental lapse, that the lapse was result of her being kept in an environment that was a near vacuum when it comes to learning about her surroundings, the end result is that language, like logic, is a learned trait that requires a person to be both aware and about o test out those same surroundings.

If an infant is tied to a crib for the first 5 years of life, it has a limited environment even moreoso than Genie did, and if this is done without the child having much contact outside of being feed and the diaper and clothing changed out for fresh stuff every day, this child will not understand enough of their environment to use logic, reason, empathy, or language due to no human or animal teaching it necessary skills to advance their own learning for the first few years. While a person may be able to teach themselves, through their own logic and ability, to read and writ, to use certain tools such as a hammer, screwdriver, fashion a bucket from leaves and twine made from shreds of bark or something. In order to process higher functions such as the reasoning behind not torturing an animal, the reasoning behind why it is inaccurate to argue that because we say Edward is a man, and Edward is from Italy, and furthermore all men from Italy are blue, therefore Edward must also be blue without seeing him is because if learned abilities, behaviors, and some form of learned expression like, all working together.

Even with "monkey see, monkey do behavior such as when Genie learned to use a cup, spoon, dish and plate from her mother by watching her, even that is still learned . . . from watching her mother do the same actions that had a result of bringing water and food into her system that tasted good and kept her from feeling thirty or hungry (she did know how to use these tools from the scientists questioning both her mother's testimony, and how it had become obvious Genie knew how to use these utensils in order to eat prior to meeting anybody from outside the house).

Children raised in the wild, by other animals, utilize the rudimentary type of logic specific to that species, such as that found with wolves or monkeys . . .. . . so do you not think that if human logic were inherent or innate that they would have human logic in use instead of that specific to monkeys or wolves when being raised by wolves or monkeys?

 

[untermensche]

No ape is born with logic.

Most apes never achieve much in terms of logic.

Human apes live lives made easy because of the rare genius and think it is because they are so special.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't see an option that covered my understanding. As I see it, humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning. Logic is only a formal system that models that ability. Humans don't have an intuitive sense of the formal system but do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes.

As a comparison; humans instinctively understand that gathering more of some objects will increase the amount and using some will decrease the amount. Mathematics is a formal system that describes this but, without studying mathematics, someone would not be able to handle the symbols of mathematics.

I agree. This has to be about an ability to use logic intuitively. Logical thinking really plays a very pragmatic role in our everyday existence. It is what gives us the ability to recognize and resolve contradictory beliefs about our chaotic environment. That is, it makes our beliefs compatible with each other. Formal logic is about symbolizing logical operations. Nobody is born with an innate ability to solve problems with symbolic logic.

In this sense, many other animals certainly have an innate ability to think logically, since belief compatibility is really necessary in order to build up models of reality and test those models against new information. There is no question that apes have a capacity for logical thinking, but I think that logic works in most organisms that have even rudimentary brains, including insects. Apes are known to be able to understand and think symbolically.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't see an option that covered my understanding. As I see it, humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning. Logic is only a formal system that models that ability. Humans don't have an intuitive sense of the formal system but do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes.

As a comparison; humans instinctively understand that gathering more of some objects will increase the amount and using some will decrease the amount. Mathematics is a formal system that describes this but, without studying mathematics, someone would not be able to handle the symbols of mathematics.

So there's no logic outside formal logic? You sure?!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Saying "it is taught" does not automatically imply by the environment as if the environment itself did the teaching, instead it being either human or animal that taught it, as we have evidence for the latter not the former. Wtf? People will learn logic through their experiences either because it helps them to hunt/forage/make tools, or because other people/animals help to instill logical inferences through proper investigation of their surrounding environment.

I said the question was a bit faulty because it includes the assumption that it can be, and indeed that we already supposedly have evidence that it is innate or "native' to us thereby implying it is there upon birth, when we have no evidence of this, at all. What we do have evidence for is that it is a learned skill, not necessarily learned from direct teaching by another human/or element of nature in the sense the human/animal or environment knew what they were teaching was called logic, but it amounts to the same whatever label we pin on it to begin with.

Math as a concept does exist in nature, in the sense that we understand what we label 2 in the amount of apples, plus another 2 apples means we now have what we label as 4. So does logic in a moral sense. If we see that we are none of us in a group hungry, and one of us decides to torture a bull cattle while laughing, we cannot assess that there is a need for this, as no one is hungry. But we can conclude in watching what is happening that, if no one is hungry, and the torture has injured the cattle so now it will be subject to further possible harm or death by a nearby predator, a lone lion, or that we would need to decrease suffering because the sound of the bull's repeated and loud cries may drive a even larger group of predators such as a group of lions towards us, and this we can infer from having experienced it happening to a nearby town where someone else tortured a bull without killing it for food, the conclusion that logic draws upon is that nobody should be torturing cattle while laughing about it since it causes more harm to more animals (including us) then it causes benefit. This logical, based off of well being, is learned from the specific situation caused by fir one human in the town and then one another human outside the town, and so yes it is learned.

For it to be innate, or intuitive, it would have to be present before we become conscious beings, if not before birth. In order for us to have experienced something negative happening to us, an individual or group, we need to be aware, hold memory, self awareness, aware of our relative position in the group, our position within the physical environment, aware of other animals, that sort of thing. Because logic is a biological tool we utilize for assessment for things like harm, suffering, physical benefit, also angles, distances,, what we are trying to tell a computer to perform as the next task, and all of these things we cannot know about until we are within that specific environment as well as capable of learning because our brains need be developed enough to hold memory and t process what we see, hear, smell, touch, and the effects of our actions or inactions.

I find it appalling and astounding how few people are allowing themselves the time, patience, and the observational skill to evaluate this out of nature as well as out of man driven/controlled environment. Even if the term is not yet known by a person, as I did not realize there was a term for learning in this way until college, but already had experience with it in use in math, computer programming, and in morality because I used my environment around me to test for things such as whether or not there was a necessity for a person to be shouting at another person, found that the person being shouted at did nothing to warrant it, logic would then dictate that if the shouting continues someone else may call the police, or else they'd be losing sleep if it late at night, this ll being inferred by previous occurrences of what happens when somebody sits and shouts and screams at another person for no good reason, because there's no active danger from another person or animal or fire or flood, that sort of thing.

In programming logic is evidenced by if/then statements, and used in math such as with algebra, and finally in moral arguments as well as in an argument to explain something we can infer to be true based off of what we can already know to be true from experiencing something about an environment.

As to your statement on it being something the neural network can already do this is not the case if a person has almost no contact with people and/or animals. The Case f Genie comes to mind, that while it was study done to understand that language is a learned trait, and not about logic, this girl, because she was sequestered away from humans and other animals and her environment, tied to a potty chair until past the age of 12 years only allowed out of it when a psychologist, social worker and police were called to the house by a neighbor, she could not utilize logic or speech, at all, ever. Though there were attempts to teach it in the intervening years after she was found, and through scans were able to note that she was not born with any developmental lapse, that the lapse was result of her being kept in an environment that was a near vacuum when it comes to learning about her surroundings, the end result is that language, like logic, is a learned trait that requires a person to be both aware and about o test out those same surroundings.

If an infant is tied to a crib for the first 5 years of life, it has a limited environment even moreoso than Genie did, and if this is done without the child having much contact outside of being feed and the diaper and clothing changed out for fresh stuff every day, this child will not understand enough of their environment to use logic, reason, empathy, or language due to no human or animal teaching it necessary skills to advance their own learning for the first few years. While a person may be able to teach themselves, through their own logic and ability, to read and writ, to use certain tools such as a hammer, screwdriver, fashion a bucket from leaves and twine made from shreds of bark or something. In order to process higher functions such as the reasoning behind not torturing an animal, the reasoning behind why it is inaccurate to argue that because we say Edward is a man, and Edward is from Italy, and furthermore all men from Italy are blue, therefore Edward must also be blue without seeing him is because if learned abilities, behaviors, and some form of learned expression like, all working together.

Even with "monkey see, monkey do behavior such as when Genie learned to use a cup, spoon, dish and plate from her mother by watching her, even that is still learned . . . from watching her mother do the same actions that had a result of bringing water and food into her system that tasted good and kept her from feeling thirty or hungry (she did know how to use these tools from the scientists questioning both her mother's testimony, and how it had become obvious Genie knew how to use these utensils in order to eat prior to meeting anybody from outside the house).

I used "native" here like this:

Native
4. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: her native intelligence.

Children raised in the wild, by other animals, utilize the rudimentary type of logic specific to that species, such as that found with wolves or monkeys . . .. . . so do you not think that if human logic were inherent or innate that they would have human logic in use instead of that specific to monkeys or wolves when being raised by wolves or monkeys?

Please provide a sample of that apparently very different "monkey" logic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I said the question was a bit faulty because it includes the assumption that it can be, and indeed that we already supposedly have evidence that it is innate or "native' to us thereby implying it is there upon birth, when we have no evidence of this, at all. What we do have evidence for is that it is a learned skill, not necessarily learned from direct teaching by another human/or element of nature in the sense the human/animal or environment knew what they were teaching was called logic, but it amounts to the same whatever label we pin on it to begin with.

By the OP's "native", I meant something that's not cultural but comes from our nature, not necessarily that it is there fully formed at birth:

Native
4. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: her native intelligence.

Native
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability.

Native
1. relating or belonging to a person or thing by virtue of conditions existing at the time of birth: my native city.
2. inherent, natural, or innate: a native strength.

The OP was explicit about what I meant:

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

So, no, "native" doesn't necessarily imply that it is there upon birth, merely that something must be there at birth so that our sense of logic can develop naturally given any appropriate environment. In this sense, it's really like vision or hearing in that there's obviously a genetic "programme" all ready to come into action provided the appropriate environmental conditions and stimulus are there.

I don't think you would say that vision and hearing are "taught" to us by the environment... And our sense of logic to me works very much like vision and hearing, which is why I take the word "sense" here to be appropriate.

I also hope you wouldn't deny that vision and hearing are native to the brain even though these function don't develop if the environment doesn't provide the necessary stimulus.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So I take it that ten of the following thirteen posters don't have a clue:

Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days: 16
Juma, none, gmbteach, Iznomneak, The AntiChris, Cheerful Charlie, sdelsolray, Tharmas, Speakpigeon, skepticalbip, untermensche, Copernicus, steve_bank

Only three of us have a view. Ten don't have any view. I'm really impressed.
EB

 

[jab]

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

Something we can use but that we can also disregard when it suits us for whatever reason.
EB

I would say it's a capacity or potential skill, which is possessed in varying degrees by humans, and which some species of animals seem to possess. I don't think it's an instinct, quite, but I voted for that option as the one closest to my position..

 

[Speakpigeon]

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

Something we can use but that we can also disregard when it suits us for whatever reason.
EB

I would say it's a capacity or potential skill, which is possessed in varying degrees by humans, and which some species of animals seem to possess. I don't think it's an instinct, quite, but I voted for that option as the one closest to my position..

OK, thanks.

Now, look again, there's no option for "instinct" as such. To have a "native, intuitive sense of logic" doesn't mean an instinct. It means either an instinct or something that will develop in any normal environment, as long as you have inputs to the brain that are consistent with an ordered world, and not something entirely chaotic or just giving off white noise.

My view is that our sense of logic has to develop prior to our acquisition of the basics about human relations, social life, and some such complex realities, simply because logic is necessary to understand abstract relations, relations that are not directly evidenced by our perception system, like obstacles, wounds and objects for example are.

So, no, not instinctive. Just natural rather than taught.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

Do we have a native, intuitive sense of logic, do you think?

Something we're born with or develop inevitably with the development of our brain during the first few years of our lives.

Something we can use but that we can also disregard when it suits us for whatever reason.
EB

I would say it's a capacity or potential skill, which is possessed in varying degrees by humans, and which some species of animals seem to possess. I don't think it's an instinct, quite, but I voted for that option as the one closest to my position..

OK, thanks.

Now, look again, there's no option for "instinct" as such. To have a "native, intuitive sense of logic" doesn't mean an instinct. It means either an instinct or something that will develop in any normal environment, as long as you have inputs to the brain that are consistent with an ordered world, and not something entirely chaotic or just giving off white noise.

My view is that our sense of logic has to develop prior to our acquisition of the basics about human relations, social life, and some such complex realities, simply because logic is necessary to understand abstract relations, relations that are not directly evidenced by our perception system, like obstacles, wounds and objects for example are.

So, no, not instinctive. Just natural rather than taught.
EB

Disagree. We are taught logic by our experiences during life. Obstacles, wounds and objects encountered by us are some of our teachers. Our innate ability is to learn from experience. But I suppose it sounds more sophisticated and important and imposing to call that ability to learn 'innate logic'.

 

[DolphinDynasty]

I used "native" here like this:

Children raised in the wild, by other animals, utilize the rudimentary type of logic specific to that species, such as that found with wolves or monkeys . . .. . . so do you not think that if human logic were inherent or innate that they would have human logic in use instead of that specific to monkeys or wolves when being raised by wolves or monkeys?

Please provide a sample of that apparently very different "monkey" logic.
EB

Logic in other species is distinct from that of humans in that it is rudimentary, lacks conceptual understanding thing s like asking questions of reality or themselves or each, lacks language expression in order to relay details in clearer, shorter sense of both time and in order to bridge gaps in other animal's understanding f an event they were not present for. Its not that other animals don't possess the ability, if learned, to understand their environment and use it to their benefit. Parrots, ants, monkeys, dolphins, orca (that are also dolphins), horses and even badgers have used something, either an object or made tool, in order to find their way out of holes, traps, or to use as rudimentary weapons.

Human logic uses symbols, allows for analogies and allusions, and is expressed and therefore learned differently than with other beings. If human logic is innate, no child raised by other species would know how to imitate, communicate with and learn fro those species how to express anger in their own specific way, how to hunt and climb in the way other species do unless taught to imitate an express and hunt that way by those animals they were around (unless they happen to grow up with human that also do this).

A monkey's logic when it comes to rainfall is to use a leaf as cover, maybe, or just sit and wait it out as they've learned, like us, that rainfall stops eventually. A human's logic is to learn to, an together materials fir a larger, more stable structure such as a lean to, or if given enough materials in their surroundings, a roof and timbers.

Jut because it's different does not make other animal logic somehow bad and ours good, but its not the same logic. Of all the research we've done n animal behavior, animal expressions, and in other species ability to learn complex tasks, so far it's only select individuals from certain species that can learn to use and combine or rip apart and reform symbols. This is because for those individuals, who run on a needs/rewards or model/reward basis (like with that parrot that became aware of the concept of zero, the benefit was that researcher left the parrot alone after that which is what the parrot wanted in the first place hence it repeating there were "none" as in "zero" orange keys when the question was actually "how many yellow", they need to see benefit for them to learn to use it.

Humans have moved beyond benefit that is immediate to understanding that benefit may be there, it may not, it may be eventual, and they may outlive that eventuality, and yet they could also never see it in generations so far, but still use it because it' the best tool we use to understand who we are, where we are, how many, how long do we have estimated time-wise here on earth, can we go elsewhere, how far, how many times, what's that animal over there and what's it doing, etc etc.

The original poll, however, is asking if logic is innate, intuitive, or native and I explained it is not. For something to be innate it is then something that is either present before birth, or else it is not necessary for any environmental pressures, information or additives to be there to learn from, even if not directly taught by a human animal or other species in such a way that everyone understand it as logic, because its not necessary to know the term in order to understand the concept. What is necessary is that some form of experience is present, some type of ingestion of information processed by the brain, which has to be working to at least a degree in terms of at least some of the senses, and in many ways it would need another human around at least in the first few years to grasp the elevated levels we can push logic to in order to continue to use it as the person grows and learns and grows and ages.

It's similar to when that pseudoscientist who works in neuroscience although he is not accredited for much at all if anything, Deepak Chopra, when he lays claim that language is an innate (native, intuitive) skill that humans do not need other humans and certain other environmental pressures in pace in order to learn it.

We've already shown that to be incorrect with the Case of Genie and every wolf-child, child raised by monkeys that grows past a point of time usually around the age of 8 or so, but on the outside about 12, without other humans around to teach them what sounds, syllables, symbols, pictures, and questions and response are, what they are sued for, maybe then where they are derived from, how it can help people to understand better what the child wants or needs versus just pointing or looking at what they want or need.

It's not this hard, really it's not. Other than the processes present before birth such as instincts and the running of digestive organs, and those coming in directly after it such as breathing, blinking et which are known as subconscious processes that, in the case o breathing, can have some conscious control factored in as time an development continue, nothing about human minds or the way the brain works is innate. Testing does not always have to be a conscious thing wither, like when a young child discovers for the first time that a glowing burner on an electric stove is glowing because it's hot, it burns, pulls their hand away and after that steers clear of the stove once they see it glowing. Not the best way, by far, to discover when something is potentially harmful, no, but it is rudimentary logic, a logic that can move past rudimentary, if taught at a young age to analyze, how to think, how to question, how to discover other things about reality. This cannot happen if it is innate because all innate things are simply an attribute, not a skill. Logic is a skill. Physical appearance, instinct, the way ears looks, the color of something or someone's eyes, are attributes.

Schacter's Two Factor theory, Lawrence Kohlberg's theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs an the theory of Consciousness (from I forget who), Pavlov, Skinner, Bronfrenbrenner, all point to the fact that without experience in the environment, which is how we learn anything at any point within any second of our lives, there isn't even probability as far as we know right now for logic, reason, empathy, and also moral code, or any codes we use in language just like language itself, to be innate or inherent or intuitive. Even when we intuit emotion from a person, we are still relying on our past experience, on expression and body language and behavior, all of which is learned through time and experience with nature (whether wild or man manipulated it doesn't matter).

Watch The Mocking Bird Sings (fictionalized docudrama on the Case of Genie) because even though the research was on psychological study of emotionality, brain development when not nurtured, an language you'd see she had no concept of using reason to form conclusions or decisions on pretty much anything, not because her brain was in any way warped or diminished but because without learning anything she knew almost nothing about the world or how to move in it, since without experience and skills (like logic) she'd no idea how fast cars move an how it might be dangerous, in seeing it run over an animal, to move out into the street when there are lots of cars etc etc.

It's a learned skill reinforced by benefit versus risk/failure. Similar as with other animals, just not the same since it has a lower stopping point for most considering they have fewer needs and lower (or perhaps almost no) self awareness.

goddammit, I need to go back to school (or want to anyway). Fuck, I hate being me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Disagree. We are taught logic by our experiences during life. Obstacles, wounds and objects encountered by us are some of our teachers. Our innate ability is to learn from experience.

I don't see that we disagree much here. I would be the first one to say that our brain can only develop normally as a result of its interaction with a proper environment. I don't think that a new born has enough of a brain to have a sense of logic so inevitably such as to develop with the brain as it itself gain maturity over the first few years of life.

Now you can choose to call that "the environment teaching the brain" but it's still not necessarily anybody human from the American Federation of Teachers doing it. And I hope you would assume that the brain has its own inherent and perfectly natural capabilities that makes this "teaching" at all possible. Try to teach logic too a brick if you don't believe me. So, "teaching" is necessary but native brain capabilities are necessary, too. And crucially, the brain doesn't need anybody human from the American Federation of Teachers to provide the necessary inputs.

Personally, it's clear to me that the brain of a young baby is much more proactive throughout this process than the overall environment usually is. An apt metaphor would be a seed that grows in the ground. The ground is necessary but the seed is definitely more important. The environment is unimportant for the brain as long as we have one and it's not just white noise or chaos. The thing that brings order to it is the developing brain. Ultimately it's all done presumably by nature, which provides both the brain and the environment, but that doesn't mean the brain and the environment play the role you suggest with your "teach".

Still, if you prefer it this way, I don't see the need to change your mind.

But I suppose it sounds more sophisticated and important and imposing to call that ability to learn 'innate logic'.

You should know that this kind of needlessly negative and agressive remarks marks you out as either somehow resentful and bitter or just a fool. Your choice.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

 

[untermensche]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

There is the logical use of objects.

A bird can build a nest.

And then there is the logical use of language and ideas.

I don't think one flows from the other. The nest is a preordained goal.

What is called logic in language is sometimes just a recognition of an innate grammar. A recognition of how words must be arranged to make sense.

Boy walked to store.

Not; To walked boy store.

 

[skepticalbip]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

There is the logical use of objects.

A bird can build a nest.

And then there is the logical use of language and ideas.

I don't think one flows from the other. The nest is a preordained goal.

What is called logic in language is sometimes just a recognition of an innate grammar. A recognition of how words must be arranged to make sense.

Boy walked to store.

Not; To walked boy store.

Word order isn't "innate grammar". Word order is a social construct as is obvious if you happen to study another language that uses a different order than the one you grew up with.

 

[fromderinside]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

The intervening having been put to rest shall we return to whither logic is native which I kind of believe that it is since it comes with capacities evolved early on. As to whether it is intuitive depends on whether one believes classical logic is of the mind which it need not be just bvcause one has the equipment to perform logic.